Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Web ChatTeamSpeak 3 (81 users)
Active: 7939 users | |
|
 0neder United States. May 29 2012 06:55. Posts 3732 | Profile # |
On May 29 2012 06:50 Psychonian wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 05:36 JerKy wrote:
carriers are just to susceptible to corruptors and vikings imo
perhaps a speed increase to carriers or increased durability would be nice
you COULD get void rays/phoenix to help out, but it still wouldnt be the same type of carrier style seen in BW
I think a speed upgrade would be nice, or maybe cost being nerfed. Honestly, can someone from blizzard honestly say WHY they are taking the carrier out?
Basically, it boils down to incompetence. We lamented the loss of moving shot, and they gave us.....the phoenix with 'moving shot.' Their programmers even inverted HSm splash radius without noticing, so that doesn't give me much faith in them.
The real tragedy is the loss of micro and bad game design. Those two things are making the Carrier very hard to use successfully, it's not inherently flawed as a unit. |
| |
|
| zefreak United States. May 29 2012 06:57. Posts 2614 | Profile Blog # |
| After watching Crank use the carrier in GSTL, I want the unit to stick around. Beautiful unit, just needs a slight buff in some way. |
| | www.gosu-sc.com - Starcraft News, Strategy and Merchandise |  |
|
|
| rysecake United States. May 29 2012 06:59. Posts 2489 | Profile # | |
| | The Notorious Winkles |  |
|
|
| BobbyAwesome Canada. May 29 2012 07:08. Posts 16 | Profile # |
| I think Stephano made it abundantly clear at this weekends Redbull Battlegrounds, that if you build carriers, you want to lose the game (a paraphrase of Stephanos after game interview). Squirtle learned that the hard way. I LOVE carriers, but they either need to be changed in the ways the original posts suggests, or perhaps the Carrier must simply make way for the era of the Tempest. |
| | Without me, it's just aweso. |  |
|
|
| Kluey Canada. May 29 2012 07:11. Posts 1170 | Profile # |
On May 29 2012 07:08 BobbyAwesome wrote:
I think Stephano made it abundantly clear at this weekends Redbull Battlegrounds, that if you build carriers, you want to lose the game (a paraphrase of Stephanos after game interview). Squirtle learned that the hard way. I LOVE carriers, but they either need to be changed in the ways the original posts suggests, or perhaps the Carrier must simply make way for the era of the Tempest.
The problems with carriers in that game: He had to basically sacrifice his army, let the slowest units Broodlords get to his base, sac his 5th,4th and 3rd, and then lose to 22 corruptors follow up. They take so long to make! He couldn't afford interceptors because they cost so many minerals. And finally, there's no micro in the carrier. He just a-clicked and waited.. |
| |
|
| Otak United Kingdom. May 29 2012 07:13. Posts 105 | Profile # |
| Collossus, Roach and Marauder should be taken out of the game imo. With these 'a-move syndrome' units gone, corruptors and vikings can be altered (not needed to counter collossus) and carriers could become viable. I truly believe that the 3 units mentioned at the start of this post are the key to all the problems with this game. Wish they'd get rid of those rather than considering scrapping the carrier... |
|
|
| SirGlinG Sweden. May 29 2012 07:16. Posts 715 | Profile Blog # |
Dear Mr Operator: Please add a petition to this and fuse it with all these forumwords and we'll show them Blizzards what we mean and how hard we mean it!
To me the same thing could be said about the Mothership leaving the game.
If it's imbalanced then nerf it a bit. Or change it in a big way.
If it's just a underused unit. Then let it be underused. It doesn't mean that that it's an impossible unit which can not come and go with the times.
And if it's not going to be used at all, like the scout from Brood war.
Then so be it. There's no harm in that, rather the opposite.
Hots is an Add on, not a remove on.
Last edit: 2012-05-29 07:16:50 |
| | Not my chair. Not my problem. That's what I say |  |
|
|
| 0neder United States. May 29 2012 07:17. Posts 3732 | Profile # |
Agree about the marauder.
The roach w/ burrow move is interesting. I think they should re-explore having it 1 supply and balancing accordingly and maybe upping regen accordingly. Zerg needs another swarm unit beyong zerglings/banelings to be quantitatively superior vs T and P.
The Colossus *could* stay in, but they need to make it more interesting by exagerrating its strengths and weaknesses. Make it's attack better and make it move more slowly, I'd say. |
| |
|
| kyllinghest Norway. May 29 2012 07:18. Posts 1150 | Profile # |
On May 29 2012 07:08 BobbyAwesome wrote:
I think Stephano made it abundantly clear at this weekends Redbull Battlegrounds, that if you build carriers, you want to lose the game (a paraphrase of Stephanos after game interview). Squirtle learned that the hard way. I LOVE carriers, but they either need to be changed in the ways the original posts suggests, or perhaps the Carrier must simply make way for the era of the Tempest.
If the pokemon would have recalled out of stephanos base his carrier move would have been a strong one, he would have had more time to build up a large force of the insane-dps unit. As he chose to use a vortex, and a bad one aswell, he lost his entire army for very little zerg stuff. This forced him to unveil his carriers too early, and with too little support. He was already dead when they were called to action. Carriers are good units, and we will see more of them in the future. They wont get taken out. |
| |
|
| How2getMaster Germany. May 29 2012 07:21. Posts 124 | Profile # |
Keep the Carrier in the Game!!  Regardless if it get´s buffed or not.
Greetings. |
| | DiamondToss looking for a team :) | |
|
|
| NicolBolas United States. May 29 2012 07:57. Posts 1386 | Profile Blog # |
On May 29 2012 06:50 Psychonian wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 05:36 JerKy wrote:
carriers are just to susceptible to corruptors and vikings imo
perhaps a speed increase to carriers or increased durability would be nice
you COULD get void rays/phoenix to help out, but it still wouldnt be the same type of carrier style seen in BW
I think a speed upgrade would be nice, or maybe cost being nerfed. Honestly, can someone from blizzard honestly say WHY they are taking the carrier out?
Why should they? They only put Carriers into the game because fans wanted them there. Blizzard never wanted to have them. The original SC2 alpha concept for the Tempest was similar to a Carrier, but with lots of differences (ground-only shield, likely a lot cheaper and faster to build, much shorter range, etc). But no, the fans all cried "We want the Carrier back."
Are you happy now?
Personally, I say let Blizzard put what they want in the game. And if they don't want something there, then they should take it out. We'll decide in the end if what they make is a good game or not.
Their programmers even inverted HSm splash radius without noticing, so that doesn't give me much faith in them.
Please; a programmer didn't do that; it was a scripter/designer. Programmers write the game engine code, not the scripts that make up the game.
Plus, it was nothing more than a simple typo. Exactly the sort of thing a beta is supposed to find. Why are you attacking someone for using the beta process... for it's intended purpose?
If you're going to hate on Blizzard, you could at least do so for actual failings, not imagined nonsense or blowing simple human errors out of proportion.
If it's just a underused unit. Then let it be underused. It doesn't mean that that it's an impossible unit which can not come and go with the times.
And if it's not going to be used at all, like the scout from Brood war.
Then so be it. There's no harm in that, rather the opposite.
Nonsense.
There are only a certain number of units in the game; they're not going to make a game with 20 units on each side. There is no point in having worthless units in the game.
At best, worthless units allow someone to use them every now and then and pull an undeserved victory out of nowhere. Or just to BM someone who's clearly beneath their skill. Personally, I can do without that. Otherwise, these units are just taking up space.
Blizzard is not going to have 2 fake units at the StarPort and 3 real ones. They would much prefer to just have 3-4 real units there, and I completely agree with this. The game doesn't get better from having failed units in it. Failed units are a sign of failed game design.
I would rather Blizzard spend the time to make a Protoss air force worth using as a whole. I want the Protoss to have serious air options that can augment their ground forces significantly.
Personally, I don't care about the Carrier. I've seen enough Carrier play in SC1; I don't have any particular need for it in SC2. As long as they replace it with something good, that requires thought and effort to use, I'm fine.Last edit: 2012-05-29 08:09:21 |
| | So you know, cats are interesting. They are kind of like girls. If they come up and talk to you, it's great. But if you try to talk to them, it doesn't always go so well. - Shigeru Miyamoto |  |
|
|
| sixtysix May 29 2012 08:36. Posts 7 | Profile # |
| Personally I use Carriers in my SC2 games. If I ever EVER get to the point of late game PvP (3 base and beyond) I will make the investment into Carriers. Maybe three or Four nothing too massive just something to add a little more DPS. I haven't really tried them against any other race yet though. |
|
|
| Zambrah United States. May 29 2012 08:43. Posts 1468 | Profile # |
I'd like to see the Tempest be an upgraded form of the Phoenix or something, so that Protoss air can be transitioned into from Phoenix builds.
Zerg has the tanky Corruptor with it's Corruption ability.
Terran has the long-range Viking.
Protoss has the Phoenix/Void Ray, which seem to be lacking in any real air battle due either to cost or just the nature of the opponent's air units.
Something that can help deal with Vikings and Corruptors to keep them off of the bulk of the Carrier could make Carriers legitimately useful. With something like a mini-Tempest emerging from a Phoenix you could transition from a Phoenix/air build into legitimate air play.
Protoss tends to have that period in the early game where they use Air units (albeit its rather rare now) and then never use them again until the really late game, where the Terran has upgraded his air weapons to more effectively take out Colossus, and the Zerg has invested in air upgrades because... well, Broodlord/Corruptor tends to like it's air upgrades.
With some way to let the Protoss transition from early air play to late game air play without that huge upgrade disparity (which REALLY hurts Carriers) Protoss air will seem much less... awful.
Theres also making them more micro rewarding units, which might be the smarter and more efficient and beneficial way to make the Carriers good. <3 |
| | "Did you just.. are you.. is this... what? Bitch please, I am iNcontroL." | |
|
|
| NKB United Kingdom. May 29 2012 08:49. Posts 383 | Profile # |
On May 29 2012 06:57 zefreak wrote:
After watching Crank use the carrier in GSTL, I want the unit to stick around. Beautiful unit, just needs a slight buff in some way.
I have got to agree with this, the carrier just needs a little something to make a bit more viable overall |
| | Some times you just gotta wish... |  |
|
|
| Kharnage Australia. May 29 2012 08:53. Posts 831 | Profile # |
On May 29 2012 08:49 NKB wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 06:57 zefreak wrote:
After watching Crank use the carrier in GSTL, I want the unit to stick around. Beautiful unit, just needs a slight buff in some way.
I have got to agree with this, the carrier just needs a little something to make a bit more viable overall
Make interceptors free.
That is all. |
| |
|
| PlacidPanda United States. May 29 2012 09:12. Posts 243 | Profile # |
| I swear to god, reading this thread is like watching people talk about panda conservation. |
| | Squirtle Hwaitting!! |  |
|
|
| Chicken Chaser United States. May 29 2012 09:28. Posts 513 | Profile # |
On May 29 2012 07:18 kyllinghest wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 07:08 BobbyAwesome wrote:
I think Stephano made it abundantly clear at this weekends Redbull Battlegrounds, that if you build carriers, you want to lose the game (a paraphrase of Stephanos after game interview). Squirtle learned that the hard way. I LOVE carriers, but they either need to be changed in the ways the original posts suggests, or perhaps the Carrier must simply make way for the era of the Tempest.
If the pokemon would have recalled out of stephanos base his carrier move would have been a strong one, he would have had more time to build up a large force of the insane-dps unit. As he chose to use a vortex, and a bad one aswell, he lost his entire army for very little zerg stuff. This forced him to unveil his carriers too early, and with too little support. He was already dead when they were called to action. Carriers are good units, and we will see more of them in the future. They wont get taken out.
I posted in the Red Bull Battlegrounds thread that Squirtle should have went for a base trade while Stephano was maxed out with an army that couldn't attack air. Maybe there were some left over queens and corruptors, but certainly not the remax of corruptor/infestor that made the carriers look like a total joke. Going back to kill the broodlords was a mistake. |
|
|
| JiYan United States. May 29 2012 09:31. Posts 3587 | Profile Blog # |
On May 29 2012 08:53 Kharnage wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 08:49 NKB wrote:
On May 29 2012 06:57 zefreak wrote:
After watching Crank use the carrier in GSTL, I want the unit to stick around. Beautiful unit, just needs a slight buff in some way.
I have got to agree with this, the carrier just needs a little something to make a bit more viable overall
Make interceptors free. That is all.
and perhaps make carriers with the same build time as battlecruisers? It still doesnt make sense to me that the carrier takes 30 seconds longer than the battlecruiser to make, not including interceptors. |
| |
|
| sjperera Canada. May 29 2012 09:38. Posts 334 | Profile Blog # |
| Would buffing the Carrier, making intercepters free etc... and then removing the Colossi make Vikings and Corrupters less inevitable and make the Carrier a possibility..? |
| |
|
| Fig United States. May 29 2012 09:48. Posts 1235 | Profile # |
On May 29 2012 09:38 sjperera wrote:
Would buffing the Carrier, making intercepters free etc... and then removing the Colossi make Vikings and Corrupters less inevitable and make the Carrier a possibility..?
Well it's true that the Colossus hurts the entire air tech route because it can also be hit by anti-air. In fact, 3 out of the 4 robo units can be hit by air to air. That plus the mothership makes 7 units that are countered by mass viking/corruptor. The design for the Colossus weakness may be unique, but it hurts the variety of the game. |
| | Cantaloupes are just antelope eggs that couldn't |  |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Next |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
WCS
SC2Links Mobile App …
